al-Dukhān 44:37

A-hum khayrun am qawmu tubbaʿin wa'lladhīna min qablihim, ahlaknāhum, innahum kānū mujrimīn

"Are they better, or the people of Tubbaʿ and those before them? We destroyed them; they were guilty."

The question is in the pattern a … am: which of two things. And the word khayr is here an elative (the shortened form of akhyar): better, superior.

Exactly the same pattern was treated in al-Qamar:

"The forty-third verse turns directly to the addressee: a-kuffārukum khayrun min ulāʾikum?"

The question in al-Qamar was built with min (the particle of comparison), the one in al-Dukhān with am (the particle of alternatives). The difference is small; both do the same work.

And the logic of the question must be recorded — this is a repeated method of the Qurʾān:

The other party had advanced a claim of impossibility (35: we shall not be raised). The verse answers it not with an argument about possibility but with a parallel: there were those stronger than you; what became of them?

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the order of the two verses: the demand was "bring back the dead"; the answer is "look at those who have gone". The kind of proof asked for, that is, is not changed — what is asked for is a dead man too — but its direction is turned.

A note is also needed on the sense of the word khayr here: the word can report moral superiority and can report superiority of strength and means. The context is closer to the second — because what is compared is a people that was destroyed. But this is an observation, not a preference.

And its sharing of a root with the thirty-second verse was recorded above: ikhtarnāhum (We chose) and khayrun (better) are from the same root.

A record was entered about this people in Qāf and I keep that record exactly. The finding there was this:

"تُبَّع is not a proper name but a title. In the historical records it is known as the title borne by the Ḥimyarite rulers who held sway in South Arabia (Yemen). The word is from the root ت-ب-ع: to follow, to come after — that is, 'the one who is followed'." "The Qurʾān names this community in two places (Qāf 50/14 and here) and gives no detail in either." "Who Tubbaʿ was, which Tubbaʿ he was, and how his people were destroyed are not reported. In the works of exegesis and history there are accounts of rulers bearing the title Tubbaʿ; some of these carry favourable judgements about Tubbaʿ himself and unfavourable ones about his people. Since I cannot vouch for the soundness of these accounts I do not transmit them."

I keep the same care here: there is no certain knowledge, and I do not produce any.

I add here two data of wording not present in Qāf, and both are read off the text.

One. The context of the two occurrences differs:

In Qāf the people are one of a series of communities. In al-Dukhān they are used as a measure — Mecca is compared with them.

Two. al-Dukhān does not leave the people standing alone: wa'lladhīna min qablihim — "and those before them".

I record this as my own reading: the comparison is made not with one people but with an open-ended chain. Not "are you better than that people", that is, but "than that people and all those before them".

And this makes the answer to the question unnecessary. Since the chain is open backwards, the comparison cannot be closed.

The question was asked and not answered. In its place came a verb: ahlaknāhum — "We destroyed them".

In Arabic this may be called a move close to uslūbu'l-ḥakīm: instead of answering the question, to give a piece of information that makes the answer unnecessary.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the word order of the sentence: it is not said "they were better" or "you are better". What is said is this: even if they were better, they were destroyed. Whatever the result of the comparison, that is, the outcome does not change.

And the sentence is unconnected (istiʾnāf): ahlaknāhum comes with no particle between. This makes the sentence read not as an answer but as a verdict.

And the last clause gives the ground of the destruction: because they were guilty.

The pattern is again kāna + an active participle: an ongoing attribute.

And the chain with the twenty-second verse closes:

I present this as my own reading, and its ground is the shared root of the two verses: nowhere does the sūra tie destruction to a difference of strength. In both places the ground is given with the same word: guilt.

And this becomes an indirect answer to the question of the thirty-seventh verse: a question of superiority was asked, and the answer is given on another axis. The measure is not khayr (superiority) but jurm (guilt).